I found Beatrice’s metaphors quite interesting. This text is for me an original and creative way to express her strong opinions.
First we have to realize that this text was written in 1932, therefore she was a modernist, this means she believed that there was only one way (the right one) to do something, and that we should always follow the rules.

Basically I got 2 key ideas from the text:
Firstly, the content is more important that the media. If we have to choice between a goblet of solid gold (quite luxurious and expensive) or a crystal transparent one to pour wine, the right decision will be the last one. This is because it was effectively designed to “reveal rather than hide the beautiful thing which it was meant to contain”, wine.
This also applies to typography’s choice, which depends on the content.
And she goes further with the metaphors saying that, the long stem of a wineglass works in the same way as the margins of a book that again, are there for a specific reason.

Secondly, as good designers first we should focus on the function not on the appearance. Through history we have seen that “wine” as well as the “ideas” have the power of altering people’s minds. Printing is basically a way humans use to transfer each others thoughts. So the main function of printing is to deliver ideas from one mind to another. The world of typography is so extensive that without having in mind this primary function we can easily fail in our mission as designers.

In conclusion, she is telling us that “Good design should be invisible”. So after reading a book, article, etc… readers shouldn’t remember the appearance of the cover, pages or typography, but only remember the written message.
In the same way the perfect wineglass is the one that let us taste the wine with all our senses, so we wont remember the glass but we will remember the taste of the wine.

By contrast, the Postmodernist vision of Keen, encourages us as designers to break the rules and not be invisible.

For me the question is if as designers, do we have a Modernist or Postmodernist posture.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

“post modernist” is a strange phrase, surely post modernist is the new modernist as everything that is current is ‘modern’. ANYHOO….

When I read Beatrice’s article is does make sense. Do you agree with it entirely though?

I think, once you start reading the other articles, you learn a bit more and gain a larger perspective of the issue. In this case I understand why the later designers, like Keen (who, if it is the same Andrew Keen, ironically has very ‘outdated’ views on the development of art & design through Screen) thought that Beatrice’s views were limited and not really lenient on the fact that type can be functional and enjoyed as art, still making an impact in the same way. That, by today’s standards, there is more scope to use type as decorative and attention grabbing, or to accompany an image through the visuals and evoking the right ‘feelings’ and therefore message.

It is unfair that the current designers slate her to that extent though, as you must consider that she did hold these views in the 1930’s, where type was only really applied in text/book, or basic poster format, where the need to see the content of the text rather than the text is, of course, far more relevant! And that applies for type in the same mediums today! If Beatrice lived now however, I’m pretty sure she would have had a lot more to consider and alter on her view point.

Even in our Graphic Design Principles session though, Chris (was it Chris??) stated that good type is invisible type, so he obviously was in agreement with Beatrice’s values. However, he also stated that type used for titles can be a lot more expressive and doesn’t need to be held in by the grid so much. Perhaps modern posters or type design is nothing but titles! (i don’t know…)

so in direct answer to your end question. I reckon designers have both post modern and modernist stances. I really do think it mainly depends on the content and object which the type is for, and the reason why it is more contendable (is this a word?) today is because there is such a huge amount of variations of platforms and mediums of viewing type (screen print etc etc), and more to express with type that the original question of objectivity has been brought to light.

Maybe the whole arguments of over-saturation of (advertising) content in media is related to this argument? People are questioning whether we have lost our original values in design, and that is why they are discussing whether content is more important.

Even in design today, there is a great appreciation with Warde’s viewpoint on typography. Similar to what Abi said, it really does depend on the context of the where the type features and what the text is communicating.

The history of text and image in advertising has changed considerably. In Warde’s modernist era the type provided an extended narrative to the advert, sold through a lengthy passage when life was not so fast paced. Now, advertising needs to work at an instant, text supports and strengthens what the image portrays, text needs to be as “outlandish” as the message to draw people’s attention. If this breaks the “good typography” argument then so be it.

Again agreeing with Abi, the over saturation of advertising that the public are subjected to just washes over their attention, it takes something “special” to be noticed. The public are used to the impersonal gimmicks and designers are aware of this. However whether or not these designers are brave enough to create “invisible” design, to allow the message to speak for itself and to gamble that their invisible campaign will ironically stand out in the dense forrest of advertising is a different matter. Could they (or would they want to) be the modern day Beatrice Warde?

In “good” design, the elements are not the ones that mean to be “invisible”, it’s the person that it’s behind it, the designer, the one that should be “invisible”. Being this principle one of the main differences between the artist and the designer.

We mean to see the artist in each one of its pieces. Every artist have its own style, and use its favourite colours, techniques, etc. So when you see one of its peaces you know who is the author because in some way you see its own personality in there.

As graphic designers we are not supposed to leave our fingerprint. Can we, as graphic designers, have a favourite colour?
Michael Evamy said in his talk at the Lcc, how important is for a brand to find its own voice. Therefore, in any logo, poster or web site that is designed for a company, it has to look like is the company’s voice the one that is speaking, not the designer’s one.